-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Evolution vs Creationism
- Thread starter Coburgtiger
- Start date
So my 6yo came home today after playing at a friends place to tell me that a scientist made the world, the planets and everything we see. He was around before the dinosaurs. I asked him if the scientist was called "God" and sure enough, it was.
Now begins the process of explaining the difference between fact and fiction. Would it be wrong of me to tell him God was invented by Pixar ?
Now begins the process of explaining the difference between fact and fiction. Would it be wrong of me to tell him God was invented by Pixar ?
Not that I am a believer but the best religious argument on this point that I ever heard was from a baptist theological professor I knew when I lived on campus. Hit argument was basically:
"I believe that god created evolution and so both sides of the argument are correct at least in part".
As a scientist I found this sort of hard logic to argue with as any evidence for evolution still fitted into his divine creation theory. Of course if he is right I might have just killed the thread lol!!!!!!
"I believe that god created evolution and so both sides of the argument are correct at least in part".
As a scientist I found this sort of hard logic to argue with as any evidence for evolution still fitted into his divine creation theory. Of course if he is right I might have just killed the thread lol!!!!!!
Azza said:
Yes, thanks.
Modern archeology has placed the date of the detachment a lot later. The receding Ice Age is seen as the major factor in the Northern Eurasian migration of humans. Pre-Celtic remains hint on a land bridge as late as 6,000 BC.
Hi Rosy,
I have a PhD in synthetic organic chemistry and spent 6 years in chemical research before moving into research in the food technology area for a large food company. I then moved into a career in the legal area where I combine my scientific knowledge with legal concepts to obtain desired business outcomes on behalf of my clients.
FWIW I have 6 papers published in peer reviewed journals and give invited lectures at one of the Universities in Melbourne. I am not sure what your definition of scientist is but I think I qualify!!!! I have worked either directly in the research science area or closely with research scientists for the last 24 years!!!!
Personally not sure I care for the tone of the question but at least I had the decency to answer it. I just wish all posters were the same.
Have a great day.
Peaka
I have a PhD in synthetic organic chemistry and spent 6 years in chemical research before moving into research in the food technology area for a large food company. I then moved into a career in the legal area where I combine my scientific knowledge with legal concepts to obtain desired business outcomes on behalf of my clients.
FWIW I have 6 papers published in peer reviewed journals and give invited lectures at one of the Universities in Melbourne. I am not sure what your definition of scientist is but I think I qualify!!!! I have worked either directly in the research science area or closely with research scientists for the last 24 years!!!!
Personally not sure I care for the tone of the question but at least I had the decency to answer it. I just wish all posters were the same.
Have a great day.
Peaka
Peaka said:
For most of us, we only have the capacity to question Evolution v Creation.
We don't have the direct capacity to prove or disprove, we can only believe either or a combination.
Our sources for either are based are on what we read, view or hear.
Through logic, we can justify and rationalise.
I like the story of Higgs & Englert and the Hadron Collider.
For 50 years it was merely a theory, unproven.
Through the Collider, it appears to be proven.
Yet for most of us, we only have the capacity to read, understand and believe, or not.
Recently, I watched a fascinating, Earth: The Making of a Planet.
It was consistent with what I understand.
But, in the end, I'm just happy to listen to stories such as these and accept that I don't know.
True enough Phantom and what we ultimately believe is based on our life experiences and the fact set ( incomplete) or otherwise) we have in front of us.
FWIW I do find it amusing when anyone uses terms like "scientific consensus". Whilst this has its place there was a time when scientific consensus said that the wart was flat and at the centre of the universe. We both know how accurate that "consensus" turned out to be.
Wonder whether the new world would have ever been discovered if the flat earthers had imposed their consensus on everybody?????
FWIW I do find it amusing when anyone uses terms like "scientific consensus". Whilst this has its place there was a time when scientific consensus said that the wart was flat and at the centre of the universe. We both know how accurate that "consensus" turned out to be.
Wonder whether the new world would have ever been discovered if the flat earthers had imposed their consensus on everybody?????
Peaka said:
that's disappointing peaka. it was actually a very straight forward question. the only tone is what you opted to give it. i asked for a definition of a word not about your personal history. i don't know the definition of scientist thus my question. it wasn't to jugde if you qualify or not. geez.
i asked because of a recent experience i had. by chance i met a lady who used to live in the district. she had her daughter with her and asked if i remembered her and swelled with pride telling me she's a scientest now. i didn't raise her with a two of children are scientists now, or any published works or international experience. i've never heard them describe themselves that way. out of interest i came home and looked up the definition of scientist. it can be pretty broad.
you mentioning yourself being a scientist brought it the incident to mind and i simply wondered, as i said, how you'd define the term.
congratulations on your achievements.
Azza said:
It's probably too small a sample size to be relevant, with the added bias that only those interested in the topic will have clicked on it, and then only those who care enough will have voted.
Having said that, it's actually a smaller proportion than I would have expected.
Peaka said:
I think the idea that is at the core of evolution is that it is both passive and inevitable.Within a system in which there is selective pressure, replication, and random change, evolution will occur, it does not need someone to create it. I guess the potential is there for 'god' to have set up those parameters. However, I believe when looked at in isolation, none of those three things really requires a creator.
In addition, the idea that an argument consisting of "god did it, prove he didn't" has been consistently rebuffed as a logical fallacy, (Flying spaghetti monster argument etc.) It's impossible to prove the negative of something so vague.
EDIT: I don't believe evolution and the concept of a god to be mutually exclusive per se, but creationism and evolution are. I think my main point would be that evolution does not require the idea of a creator as any sort of explanation, which makes it's position as a theory even stronger.
I find the minefield here to be the potential to get bogged down in ideas of "belief" and where its edges lie. This is a philosophical discussion and not an uninteresting one. While I am not a cosmologist I "know" the sun will rise tomorrow, is this belief? Is there not a wealth of evidence and thousands of years of scientific study that makes this a knowledgeable claim rather than a belief? Must each of us start from scratch and create all accumulated knowledge from first principles in order to be able to claim that what we "know" is not taken on "faith"?
I wonder if there were no consideration given to faith would creationism still be held up as rational alternative? At its very heart, though increasingly hidden by the religious right in America, is the very unscientific principle that you start with the conclusion "there is a creator" then entertain only data that you think strengthens your case. On these grounds it seems unthinkable that anyone would give serious consideration to labelling it "science" let alone teaching it in a science classroom.
I wonder if there were no consideration given to faith would creationism still be held up as rational alternative? At its very heart, though increasingly hidden by the religious right in America, is the very unscientific principle that you start with the conclusion "there is a creator" then entertain only data that you think strengthens your case. On these grounds it seems unthinkable that anyone would give serious consideration to labelling it "science" let alone teaching it in a science classroom.
I don't have a problem with teaching both, I mean ultimately we do anyway, because prior to Darwin, of course, the consensus was creationism. We also teach Plogiston to show how experimental science falsified this theory.
Ultimately also Science stands or falls on the evidence so why not present a theory which does not explain the evidence as well. It should be obvious that evolution is the better theory than special Creation.
I think Peaka made a good point that evolution is not necessarily anti-religion, and thats how it should be sold.
Ultimately also Science stands or falls on the evidence so why not present a theory which does not explain the evidence as well. It should be obvious that evolution is the better theory than special Creation.
I think Peaka made a good point that evolution is not necessarily anti-religion, and thats how it should be sold.
Djevv said:
Just like old times. ;D
A scientific theory makes testable predictions. Creationism fails at the first hurdle. It is not a science, so shouldn't be taught in the science classroom.
Just for clarity, evolutionary theory doesn't explain the origin of life, but how life changes and the forces that drive it. Abiogenesis describes origins.
I reckon it does make testable predictions, which mainstream science tested and found wanting. Things like Biogeography are specifically attacking the Biblical Deluge account. Ideas like the 'Panda's Thumb' are attacking the idea of divinely designed 'perfect' organisms. 'Deep time' was discovered in the context of a world that believed in a 6000 yr old universe by investigating radiometric dating and measured rates of deposition. How can you understand these things without understanding the alternative?Panthera tigris FC said:
I don't think I'm saying anything all that is wildly controversial here.
Djevv said:
Because if you were going to present all the imaginary possibilities, you'd be teaching forever. You'd have to teach origin stories from every religion, dreamtime, Hinduism, etc. Those things are good to know, and interesting ways of looking at the world, but have no scientific basis.
There are no testable predictions. "God created these things" is not testable, because every time you find evidence to the contrary, you can just say "God put that evidence there too." Alternate scientific theories for the complexity of life should be taught, in fact, they are. Lamarckian evolution is also taught as an hypothesis that didn't stand up to testing. (Lamarckian evolution being centred on the idea that an organism changes it's design to suit it's environment, rather than the Darwinian idea that an organism replicates with random changes to be selected for and against by the environment. )
Coburgtiger said:
Did you see my post above? Creationism does make predictions! For instance with the dinosaur bones containing red blood cells creationism surely explains that better than evolution. On the other side of the coin creationism predicts mixtures from different ages together whereas evolution describes what we actually see - a trend from simple to complex and a trend from land to sea. Also it was the pre-Darwinian paradigm! Surely you must explain how evolution overthrew it?
As for 'God did it' I think that is a caricature of creationism. Intelligent design of super complex organisms is almost a null hypothesis. We know by observation that ID can occur. There is no way it is not a scientific hypothesis.
